3 minutes ago, Jesse Christ said:

It's like, just when you think we're on the right track we recruit a future head coach and a mediocre player from the one club out of the 18 others that all sensibility should have told you to steer well clea of! What a massive shot to the confidence of the faith in the new improved culture we were cultivating.

It troubles me how a group of fanboys and fan girls on a supporters forum, who by the club's admissions shouldn't be listened to/taken seriously can see this, but those professionals paid handsomely my the club to make informed decisions can not. I hope Jake bloody Milkman and cowboy Goodwin are taken out for this and the club get a little lesson in risk management. 

Let's just hope there is a Rock Solid Plan B that has been waiting and ready. 

That cannot be disclosed until after a final verdict if needed

2 hours ago, Barney Rubble said:

I have always said "Guilty as charged" from day 1.

The thing I am annoyed about is the club failing on their due diligence in recruiting any player from a club that is under investigation from WADA. It's bad enough if you go after an elite player and get stung. But to go after a fringe player just amazes me. I thought that the club was changing the culture from top to bottom.

This could put us back 3 years, not because of losing a fringe player, but all the good work with sponsors could be undone. They will probably have been spruiking we are the "New Melbourne" only to unravel it by an Old Melbourne decision.

How Stupid can you get.

 

Current Demonland panic level = offseason.

Amazing how many here with no idea at all about the inner workings of the club apparently know better than one of the most revered coaches of all time and one of the best CEO's the club has ever had because they've read a couple of articles. FMD.

 

13 minutes ago, stuie said:

 

Current Demonland panic level = offseason.

Amazing how many here with no idea at all about the inner workings of the club apparently know better than one of the most revered coaches of all time and one of the best CEO's the club has ever had because they've read a couple of articles. FMD.

 

Really..you think this is all down to a couple of articles Stuie.

This is about what we've been talking about for years now.

When Melksham gets banned what excuse will you offer on behalf of the club ?

14 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

Really..you think this is all down to a couple of articles Stuie.

This is about what we've been talking about for years now.

When Melksham gets banned what excuse will you offer on behalf of the club ?

Yeah it has been going on for years, how many players have been banned so far?

It's funny, the same people complaining about recruiting Melksham and calling him a "fringe player" are the ones who think it's the end of the world IF he gets banned.

On 04/12/2015, 19:27:20, Red and Bluebeard said:

But can you find a carrier pigeon to take it? 

Using such modern technology is not the MFC way RBB

5 hours ago, Whispering_Jack said:

You seem to forget that one of the main objections some had about her at the time was not so much for her reporting of fact but for the way in which she blurred the line between fact and opinion so that her journalism on the so-called "tanking saga" became editorial dressed up as reporting of fact. 

Hence, for example, an anonymous person's observation that Cameron Schwab appeared "ashen faced" when Melbourne won its second game of the season was somehow conclusive proof of "tanking" or when Chris Connolly stuck his head into a meeting for 30 seconds in the "vault" and joked about it, she dramatised the meeting into something it was not. We now know of course, that her source for the latter was a disgruntled former employee with an axe to grind against her club. Nevertheless, we're still free to draw our own conclusions.

 

So you are really saying she reported acurately. Just because we didn't like what we read doesn't mean it wasnt true.  The Schwab comment is hyperbole but she was pretty spot on for the rest. And I assume it was coming straight from Adrian Anderson/Gil McLaughlin,,

23 minutes ago, stuie said:

Yeah it has been going on for years, how many players have been banned so far?

It's funny, the same people complaining about recruiting Melksham and calling him a "fringe player" are the ones who think it's the end of the world IF he gets banned.

Shut your eyes and it will all go away Stuie....

28 minutes ago, stuie said:

...
It's funny, the same people complaining about recruiting Melksham and calling him a "fringe player" are the ones who think it's the end of the world IF he gets banned.

Agree.  Also we outsiders have no idea what assurances the AFL has given clubs as to compensation if a club takes a player who gets rubbed out - we might just get another fringe player who may turn out to be a Vanders.  If you want to worry, focus on Goodwin's position.

5 minutes ago, sue said:

  If you want to worry, focus on Goodwin's position.

Have I missed something? I thought the CAS case involved a WADA Appeal on the 34 Bomber Players. Where and by who, has Goodwin been charged, putting his position at risk?

Edited December 6, 20159 yr by Redleg

Just now, Redleg said:

Have I missed something. I thought the CAS case involved a WADA Appeal on the 34 Bomber Players. Where and by who, has Goodwin been charged, putting his position at risk?

Please Don't use logic and reason here Red, as we are talking about Essendon and their past coaches.

And everyone knows Essendon is where true magic happens.

 

44 minutes ago, stuie said:

Yeah it has been going on for years, how many players have been banned so far?

It's funny, the same people complaining about recruiting Melksham and calling him a "fringe player" are the ones who think it's the end of the world IF he gets banned.

You just don't get it, do you, little stuie. It's the principal. It's the stupid decision to touch anything from that toxic club, not about which mediocre player may face bans or not, but the position we put ourselves in to be associated with that rabble.

3 minutes ago, Jesse Christ said:

You just don't get it, do you, little stuie. It's the principal. It's the stupid decision to touch anything from that toxic club, not about which mediocre player may face bans or not, but the position we put ourselves in to be associated with that rabble.

I don't normally read this thread because it bores me stupid

But......Please don't tell me that clubs won't deal with Essendon because of the appeal........That's just plain silly.

Since when does it become the "Principal".    That's like saying "It's the Vibe"

Couldn't those in charge at Essendon be pursued by WADA after the CAS case is over and done with? ... and might one of those in charge include Goodwin?

WADA Publishes List Of Banned Coaches And Support Staff For Doping Violations

Surely at least Hird, Charters, Alavi & Robinson would be charged at a later date if the players are found guilty ... even if the players are found not guilty then WADA should still go after the perpetrators (if WADA are confident that they can place the PED's at the EFC)

 

Edited December 6, 20159 yr by Macca

In answer to your query on "basis" BB, it occurred to me that notwithstanding any AFL oversight would it have been fair of MFC to say "can EFC see any reason other than normal

club procedure why Melksham would not be able to play with his new club game one 2016. If this was agreed to in writing? Same any similar impediments to Goodwin game 1 in 2016.

1 hour ago, stuie said:

Yeah it has been going on for years, how many players have been banned so far?

It's funny, the same people complaining about recruiting Melksham and calling him a "fringe player" are the ones who think it's the end of the world IF he gets banned.

Couldn't  give a fig about Milkshake.  He can't  matter to our immediate future as he won't  and never was going to part of it.

No one's  been  banned !! You say. Funny...the process to do so hasn't  come to its conclusion.  You do comprehend that ?

The most appropriate  meaning of principle  in all of this is the application  of common sense.

Why buy out of a barrel of rotten fruit ?  Especially  when elsewhere  are shelves of good unspoilt  offerings.

 

18 minutes ago, willmoy said:

In answer to your query on "basis" BB, it occurred to me that notwithstanding any AFL oversight would it have been fair of MFC to say "can EFC see any reason other than normal

club procedure why Melksham would not be able to play with his new club game one 2016. If this was agreed to in writing? Same any similar impediments to Goodwin game 1 in 2016.

As i understand  it . You're  employing someone  not buying a product. Essendon  wouldn't  be answerable to us for any stupidity  on our part.

14 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

As i understand  it . You're  employing someone  not buying a product. Essendon  wouldn't  be answerable to us for any stupidity  on our part.

Yep just like if Jack Trengove had been cleared to Richmond & then broken down. 

No longer our concern. 

Buyer Beware...

2 hours ago, Jesse Christ said:

It's like, just when you think we're on the right track we recruit a future head coach and a mediocre player from the one club out of the 18 others that all sensibility should have told you to steer well clea of! What a massive shot to the confidence of the faith in the new improved culture we were cultivating.

It troubles me how a group of fanboys and fan girls on a supporters forum, who by the club's admissions shouldn't be listened to/taken seriously can see this, but those professionals paid handsomely my the club to make informed decisions can not. I hope Jake bloody Milkman and cowboy Goodwin are taken out for this and the club get a little lesson in risk management. 

 

I just cannot conceive that, under Peter Jackson, a multi-layered contingency plan has not been made....and, surprise, surprise, it hasn't been leaked to us supporters.

Edited December 6, 20159 yr by monoccular

56 minutes ago, Macca said:

Couldn't those in charge at Essendon be pursued by WADA after the CAS case is over and done with? ... and might one of those in charge include Goodwin?

WADA Publishes List Of Banned Coaches And Support Staff For Doping Violations

Surely at least Hird, Dank, Charters, Alavi & Robinson would be charged at a later date if the players are found guilty ... even if the players are found not guilty then WADA should still go after the perpetrators (if WADA are confident that they can place the PED's at the EFC)

 

From the article it is difficult to tell when the offencse occurred.  It refers to a 'new rule'.  My recollection is that WADA changed the rules as at 01/01/15 to:

- increase player suspension maximums from 2 yrs to 4 for offences after 01/01/15...hence why EFC players face a max 2 years

- support staff could be banned, or at least the circumstances under which they are banned was broadened (again I think it was for sins after 01/01/15) but not entirely sure of how it works for support staff.   

Even if Goodwin is suspended (which I doubt) we have McCartney at the ready.

4 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

From the article it is difficult to tell when the offencse occurred.  It refers to a 'new rule'.  My recollection is that WADA changed the rules as at 01/01/15 to:

- increase player suspension maximums from 2 yrs to 4 for offences after 01/01/15...hence why EFC players face a max 2 years

- support staff could be banned, or at least the circumstances under which they are banned was broadened (again I think it was for sins after 01/01/15) but not entirely sure of how it works for support staff.   

Even if Goodwin is suspended (which I doubt) we have McCartney at the ready.

They may have changed or tightened the rules but the same basic principles could be applied regardless of when the rules were breached. 

WADA went after that Italian doctor involved in the cycling doping scandal long after he first transgressed. Hird and a few others can still be pursued you'd reckon and if those others can be pursued then where does it stop? 

There's no cut off point otherwise Armstrong would never have got done.

Edited December 6, 20159 yr by Macca

4 hours ago, Cards13 said:

Barn one would assume with the people that are in charge at MFC due diligence was carried out. With whom and how much we don't know but some questions were definitely asked of Goodwin, one would assume the AFL and potentially Milky as well.

There are a lot of assumptions Cards.

One would assume if MFC have done their due diligence then the Essendon Players are not guilty. 

I cannot assume anything else than they are guilty.

And if we were to lose Goodwin for a time then so be it ... as for Melksham*, he's just one player and he's not all that flash anyway (so far)

Goodwin will still be an unproven rookie coach and if he was rubbed out then we'd just have to find someone else ... and there would be any number of suiters for the position.

I'm not at all worried either way.

Whatever will be will be and the club is always bigger than any individual person. We're a much better run club these days so you'd reckon we'd have a decent contingency plan anyway. 

 

*I'm willing to bet that if Essendon were allowed replacement players then so would we be allowed a replacement player. That is if the players are found guilty and rubbed out. I'm not convinced of guilt or innocence yet but I lean towards guilt.

Edited December 6, 20159 yr by Macca

2 hours ago, Redleg said:

Have I missed something? I thought the CAS case involved a WADA Appeal on the 34 Bomber Players. Where and by who, has Goodwin been charged, putting his position at risk?

Redleg, I think we all know that none of the coaches etc are part of the current proceedings.  But do you know that if the players are found guilty there will be no further action against the staff?  I'm not so sure.

On 12/5/2015, 11:59:34, beelzebub said:

They calculated wrong....obviously not too good with maths     Left out a fundamental  variable  constant

corrected myself   

55 minutes ago, monoccular said:

 

I just cannot conceive that, under Peter Jackson, a multi-layered contingency plan has not been made....and, surprise, surprise, it hasn't been leaked to us supporters.

I totally agree that we should have out clauses on any contract.

That would say they have done due diligence and signed the Milkman, subject to him being exonerated by WADA.

They same for Goodwin!

Did we also sign up SOS as a group B rookie as part of the get out of jail card.